ajgeek:Though it's Bill Nye, it's also moveon.org and they've proven themselves crazy on a few occasions and that trumps the Science Guy.

Yeah, but it's actually a video created a year ago by the Climate Reality Project that was just submitted to MoveOn by some reader who happened to stumble on it just now. Problem is, the deniers will latch on to the fact that it was posted on MoveOn as a way to attack its credibility.

If it's warm, wet and/or severe: It's obviously a sign that we've damaged the climate and that we need the government to run some scheme to fix it.

If it's cold, dry, and/or mundane: It's just a short term blip in the data; you can't draw long-term conclusions from single data points. Never mind that we just used "short term blips" to prove our case.

Supes:Yeah, but it's actually a video created a year ago by the Climate Reality Project that was just submitted to MoveOn by some reader who happened to stumble on it just now. Problem is, the deniers will latch on to the fact that it was posted on MoveOn as a way to attack its credibility.

ilikeracecars:Bill Nye has to explain this stuff to reality divorced adults slowly like he does ignorant 7th grade students. There should be a test after.

This is one thing I really enjoy about him. Things people say to him, that long since would have had me slapping someone, are instead answered calmly, patiently, and respectfully; even if the presenter is obviously trying to goad him on.

HighZoolander:You mean the actual data that in no way supports your point, and makes you look like a lying twunt every time you post anything? That data?

No, I mean the GISTEMP data from NASA for the last 12 years, just like I said the first time, and just like the data says from the URL that I, you know, put right on the graph so everyone could check to see if the data was accurate or a lie.

I am sure that when it stops this, you know, 12 years of declining temperatures that it will then dutifully start warming again, right? Right guys? I mean, surely it will start warming again, soon, right? I mean, it's only been, what, like 12 years?

Just imagine how much the earth would have warmed in the last 12 years if it had just been, you know, warming.

SevenizGud:HighZoolander: You mean the actual data that in no way supports your point, and makes you look like a lying twunt every time you post anything? That data?

No, I mean the GISTEMP data from NASA for the last 12 years, just like I said the first time, and just like the data says from the URL that I, you know, put right on the graph so everyone could check to see if the data was accurate or a lie.

I am sure that when it stops this, you know, 12 years of declining temperatures that it will then dutifully start warming again, right? Right guys? I mean, surely it will start warming again, soon, right? I mean, it's only been, what, like 12 years?

Just imagine how much the earth would have warmed in the last 12 years if it had just been, you know, warming.

so even though climate cycles and discernible patterns occur over several decades, only the last 12 years matters.

SevenizGud:HighZoolander: You mean the actual data that in no way supports your point, and makes you look like a lying twunt every time you post anything? That data?

No, I mean the GISTEMP data from NASA for the last 12 years, just like I said the first time, and just like the data says from the URL that I, you know, put right on the graph so everyone could check to see if the data was accurate or a lie.

The data is fine, however, you're lying about it - it does not cover 12 years.

SevenizGud:I am sure that when it stops this, you know, 12 years of declining temperatures that it will then dutifully start warming again, right? Right guys? I mean, surely it will start warming again, soon, right? I mean, it's only been, what, like 12 years?

Just imagine how much the earth would have warmed in the last 12 years if it had just been, you know, warming.

Whether climate change is continuing or not cannot be determined from cherry-picking a short period of time relative to variability (never mind projections into the future), which is the point of that graphic that people keep hitting you over the head with:

SevenizGud:HighZoolander: You mean the actual data that in no way supports your point, and makes you look like a lying twunt every time you post anything? That data?

No, I mean the GISTEMP data from NASA for the last 12 years, just like I said the first time, and just like the data says from the URL that I, you know, put right on the graph so everyone could check to see if the data was accurate or a lie.

I am sure that when it stops this, you know, 12 years of declining temperatures that it will then dutifully start warming again, right? Right guys? I mean, surely it will start warming again, soon, right? I mean, it's only been, what, like 12 years?

Just imagine how much the earth would have warmed in the last 12 years if it had just been, you know, warming.

You mean, imagine how much it would have warmed if short term effects hadn't worked against warming?

The lie isn't the 12 years of data you posted, the lie is the omission of all the other data from the time before that you ignore and which you bizarrely can't seem to ever even acknowledge the existence of.

SevenizGud:HighZoolander: You mean, imagine how much it would have warmed if short term effects hadn't worked against warming?

B.b.b.b.but PinatuboB.b.b.b.but the fall of the USSRB.b.b.b.but all the things that work against warming, <b>like the, you know, not warming part</b>

I know you guys don't get it yet. It's only 12 years of no warming. But I am sure you are right. It will start to warm again real soon, right? Like maybe another 8 to 40 years, right?

Yep, And what you almost pathologically fail to grasp is that these cooling effects aren't actually *cooling* the planet, they're just holding things steady. Almost like some other factor was working against cooling... hmmm. what could that be, I wonder? (psst. it's called warming, and it's still happening)

SevenizGud:HighZoolander: You mean, imagine how much it would have warmed if short term effects hadn't worked against warming?

B.b.b.b.but PinatuboB.b.b.b.but the fall of the USSRB.b.b.b.but all the things that work against warming, <b>like the, you know, not warming part</b>

I know you guys don't get it yet. It's only 12 years of no warming. But I am sure you are right. It will start to warm again real soon, right? Like maybe another 8 to 40 years, right?

The idea that you're missing is that shorter-term changes can mask longer-term ones, especially if you cherry-pick a relatively short period of time. These shorter-term processes do exist, and are not somehow mutually exclusive with climate change.

The problem with the Bill Nye experiment is that it oversimplified the problem. No one questions the greenhouse effect and what it has done to Venus. And the experiment is stupid because CO2 heats up under a red light because it absorbs IR radiation.The question is whether 100 ppm increases here on earth will have a substantial impact. Eventually, increasing CO2 will have an impact, no doubt.

Animatronik:The problem with the Bill Nye experiment is that it oversimplified the problem. No one questions the greenhouse effect and what it has done to Venus. And the experiment is stupid because CO2 heats up under a red light because it absorbs IR radiation.The question is whether 100 ppm increases here on earth will have a substantial impact. Eventually, increasing CO2 will have an impact, no doubt.

More than 800,000 years of atmospheric composition data from Antarctica and Greenland say a definitive YES.

You mean the actual data that in no way supports your point, and makes you look like a lying twunt every time you post anything? That data? Here's a bit more of it.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x341]

Your cute graph:(a) does not go far back enough. Choosing 1973 as a start point is cherry-picking.(b) omits the last few years, for no good reason. We need up-to-date info(c) is not sufficiently smoothed(d) has probably been "adjusted" to get the "right result".

It's been carefully contrived to "hide the decline" as the climate-gate emails put it.

SevenizGud:HighZoolander: You mean, imagine how much it would have warmed if short term effects hadn't worked against warming?

B.b.b.b.but PinatuboB.b.b.b.but the fall of the USSRB.b.b.b.but all the things that work against warming, <b>like the, you know, not warming part</b>

I know you guys don't get it yet. It's only 12 years of no warming.

No you don't get it. There were 20 years of warming and then 15 years of no warming (taking the knee point). Your support is no better than the evidence to the contrary. All (and I mean ALL) the predictions that were made before the levelling-out have now obviously been falsified. The theory is dead.

THE GREAT NAME:Your cute graph:(a) does not go far back enough. Choosing 1973 as a start point is cherry-picking.(b) omits the last few years, for no good reason. We need up-to-date info(c) is not sufficiently smoothed(d) has probably been "adjusted" to get the "right result".

It's been carefully contrived to "hide the decline" as the climate-gate emails put it.

Really? Because it seems you're sprained quite a few neurons already with just a little bit of information - more might be disastrous for that gimpy thing you call a brain.

HighZoolander:THE GREAT NAME: Your cute graph:(a) does not go far back enough. Choosing 1973 as a start point is cherry-picking.(b) omits the last few years, for no good reason. We need up-to-date info(c) is not sufficiently smoothed(d) has probably been "adjusted" to get the "right result".

It's been carefully contrived to "hide the decline" as the climate-gate emails put it.

Really? Because it seems you're sprained quite a few neurons already with just a little bit of information - more might be disastrous for that gimpy thing you call a brain.

Damnhippyfreak:SevenizGud: HighZoolander: You mean, imagine how much it would have warmed if short term effects hadn't worked against warming?

B.b.b.b.but PinatuboB.b.b.b.but the fall of the USSRB.b.b.b.but all the things that work against warming, <b>like the, you know, not warming part</b>

I know you guys don't get it yet. It's only 12 years of no warming. But I am sure you are right. It will start to warm again real soon, right? Like maybe another 8 to 40 years, right?

The idea that you're missing is that shorter-term changes can mask longer-term ones, especially if you cherry-pick a relatively short period of time. These shorter-term processes do exist, and are not somehow mutually exclusive with climate change.

So you say 20 years is long term but 15 years is short term? Before 1978 the scientific consensus was that we were experiencing cooling (don't pretend it was a few isolated loners, it was on the cover if Time magazine FFS), so it's fair to say any pre-1970's warming is just the result of cynical adjustment of data. Furthermore nobody, literally <b>nobody</b> in the so-called overwhelming consensus actually predicted this 15-year levelling out, and that means all the *excuses* they are coming out with are just that: post-hoc guesswork. Science settled? They can't even make the most basic of predictions correctly.

And again, at the risk of repeating myself, Nye's extreme weather claim has already been falsified. There's nothing about recent weather events that is *statistically* out of the norm.

Animatronik:The problem with the Bill Nye experiment is that it oversimplified the problem. No one questions the greenhouse effect and what it has done to Venus. And the experiment is stupid because CO2 heats up under a red light because it absorbs IR radiation.The question is whether 100 ppm increases here on earth will have a substantial impact. Eventually, increasing CO2 will have an impact, no doubt.

You have to keep in mind that the demonstration was meant to convey a basic principle to the general public, not necessarily serve as an analogue for a complex atmosphere. While you're right in that the demonstration oversimplified the problem, that's also part of it's strength in terms of ease of understanding.

You mean the actual data that in no way supports your point, and makes you look like a lying twunt every time you post anything? That data? Here's a bit more of it.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x341]

Your cute graph:(a) does not go far back enough. Choosing 1973 as a start point is cherry-picking.

It depends on what you wish to convey. That graphic was meant to convey a simple idea - short-term variation can mask longer-term trends.

THE GREAT NAME:(b) omits the last few years, for no good reason. We need up-to-date info

That particular graphic was in response to a particular article in the Daily Mail last year about the BEST data set. The explanation can be found where the graphic was made. If you wish a slightly more up-to-date version, there's this one (that uses GISTEMP):

Which would remove the short-term variability which shows why the cherry-picking that HighZoolander is pointing out is problematic in the first place. In other words, such smoothing would be done for the exact same reason that picking a short period of time relative to variability can be misleading.

THE GREAT NAME:(d) has probably been "adjusted" to get the "right result".

Unsubstantiated accusation aside, the data set plotted is from the BEST project, notable for its attempt at increased transparency (and being funded and created by skeptics).

THE GREAT NAME:It's been carefully contrived to "hide the decline" as the climate-gate emails put it.

THE GREAT NAME:HighZoolander: Ah, found it - it was a youtube video, not a gif:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&feature=youtu.be

So when temperature rises, that supports your theory, but when they don't, there's some other excuse. You need to prove your theory and stop making uneducated, cherry-picking conjecture on the data.

Not all temperature changes are the same and they happen for different reasons - it's the mechanisms and processes behind it that matter, which is something that the research that HighZoolander is pointing out attempts to do. To assume otherwise is much closer to the "uneducated, cherry-picking conjecture on the data" that you're talking about.

THE GREAT NAME:SevenizGud: HighZoolander: You mean, imagine how much it would have warmed if short term effects hadn't worked against warming?

B.b.b.b.but PinatuboB.b.b.b.but the fall of the USSRB.b.b.b.but all the things that work against warming, <b>like the, you know, not warming part</b>

I know you guys don't get it yet. It's only 12 years of no warming.

No you don't get it. There were 20 years of warming and then 15 years of no warming (taking the knee point). Your support is no better than the evidence to the contrary. All (and I mean ALL) the predictions that were made before the levelling-out have now obviously been falsified. The theory is dead.

The missing out on sarcasm aside, the problem is that one cannot tell f(given such a simplistic method and short period of time) whether such a leveling-out is short-term variation due to shorter-term processes such as ENSO, or part of a longer-term change.

That aside, be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change is not based on some sort of simplistic correlation. There's only so much you can tell from just eyeballing a graph without considering the different processes at work.

I notice you have not mentioned the fact that the CO2 changes *lag* the temp changes. Everybody acknowledges this, so I can't help wondering why you omitted to mention it.

Is winning the debate more important to you than determining the truth? Answer carefully...

This isn't quite true. If you're referring to the Vostok ice cores, all that we can say is that the initial warming preceded CO2concentration - other factors, such as orbital forcing, do affect temperature. Attempting to generalize from that can be misleading:

THE GREAT NAME:Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: HighZoolander: You mean, imagine how much it would have warmed if short term effects hadn't worked against warming?

B.b.b.b.but PinatuboB.b.b.b.but the fall of the USSRB.b.b.b.but all the things that work against warming, <b>like the, you know, not warming part</b>

I know you guys don't get it yet. It's only 12 years of no warming. But I am sure you are right. It will start to warm again real soon, right? Like maybe another 8 to 40 years, right?

The idea that you're missing is that shorter-term changes can mask longer-term ones, especially if you cherry-pick a relatively short period of time. These shorter-term processes do exist, and are not somehow mutually exclusive with climate change.

So you say 20 years is long term but 15 years is short term?

Given the large amount of variability, both are short-term. 20 years is pushing it.

THE GREAT NAME:Before 1978 the scientific consensus was that we were experiencing cooling (don't pretend it was a few isolated loners, it was on the cover if Time magazine FFS), so it's fair to say any pre-1970's warming is just the result of cynical adjustment of data.

Time magazine (and the popular media) is probably a poor yardstick for the state of the scientific literature of the time. Your impression was false.From Peterson et al. 2008:

Showing the number of citations in the scientific literature.

I mean, if you're going by the cover of Time Magazine during the 70's the return of Satan was also a problem: